The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: clayflingythingy on January 08, 2008, 09:12:17 AM
-
Was thinking the blog was worthy of an honest and frank discussion. As some already know I live in a May primary state so I have no say in choosing the nominee. If I lived in an early state I would vote Fred. I have never voted Dem for prez because of the gun issue. I am a small government conservative with libertarian leanings. Just wanted to get that out there for any newbies.
I may ramble a bit here so please excuse.
What was the purpose of supporting Fred? Was it only because he was an A+ 2A supporter or was it because he was "the only real conservative"? I am a single issue 2A voter. If we are single issue 2A voters then is it more important to back a losing candidate to the bitter end or try to influence another candidate who has a real shot at winning?
At what point do we say enuff, this guy's a loser? Huckster started surging in the polls in Nov and Fred started going down. Was it reasonable to switch then? Probably not, given the Obama surge in the close of the Ia campaign and his win. Fred announced in Dec he was going all in in Ia. He did his 50 city bus tour and came in third. BARELY beating McCain for the spot. Afterward, some looked forward to a Fred surge in NH. Others believed Fred would surge and win SC. However, there was little evidence to support these hopes. Polling had never shown Fred doing well in NH. Polling had shown Huckster surging in SC. Polls after Ia showed a McCain NH surge and Huckster running away with the SC vote.
After Ia may have been the time to start rethinking candidates.
Fred may very well come in behind Ron Paul today in NH.
Fred is not going to win in Mi next week.
SC is going to be a battle between Huckster and McCain.
Just where does Fred break out in the process? Truth is, he has nowhere to make a breakout. I live in a Bible Belt state. Surrounded by Southern Baptists. The buzz I am hearing from fundamentalist coworkers/friends/relatives is Huckster. Fundamentalists have one of their own to vote for and no one turns out like fundamentalists when they are fired up on an issue. This alone dooms Fred in SC and much (ALL?) of the south.
And don't discount Hucksters "little guy against the big guy" appeal in the south. Southern Repubs are working stiffs who vote on the gun issue or social issues in general. We aren't wealthy corporate fat cats. Hucksters message will be appealing across the south, and I expect, a good deal of the country in general.
So, if my ramblings are anywhere near correct (and they are supported by polling) Fred is now out of the race.
Do we, as 2A voters stick with Fred until the bitter end? Do we boycott the election? Or do we try to make a choice between the winner of Ia and the winner(s) of NH and Mi?
If, as expected, McCain wins NH today and then goes on to win Mi that sets up a Huckster/McCain battle in SC. Who do we support?
Or do we sit around hoping for the Fred surge that the evidence tells us isn't going to happen?
I am afraid we are in danger here of pissing away 2A voter clout. If 2A voters stick with Fred to the bitter end, and the best he ever wins is 3rd, what message does that send to the antigunners? My fear is the perception will be that 2A voters can no longer deliver.
Lastly, I think this election shows that 2A voters alone aren't a big enuff voting block to choose a nominee. Something we should keep in mind for the future.
-
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, all primaries the same day...we all vote, count them, and no one gets left out.
-
Do we, as 2A voters stick with Fred until the bitter end? Do we boycott the election? Or do we try to make a choice between the winner of Ia and the winner(s) of NH and Mi?
Do we, as 2A voters stick with Fred until the bitter end? YES
Do we boycott the election? NO
Or do we try to make a choice between the winner of Ia and the winner(s) of NH and Mi? NO. We support the Republican nominee unless it is Ron Paul, then we vote Democratic.
-
I'm thinking maybe Don is right. I will probably support the nominee with my vote, because I am a single-issue voter. I say probably because Romney is antigun. read Jeff at ALPHECCA's thoughful commentary on that issue today:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=596
Mitt Romney has stated time and again (example) that he supports the “assault weapons” ban and as President would sign such legislation if it was presented to him. That would put three of the rifles and one pistol in my gun safe on the banned list. Firearms I enjoy for sporting purposes as well as for possible future self-defense.
And let me tell you this, folks, if he’s the President, the Democrat controlled congress would use that opportunity and promise to do just that. It’s safe to say that such new AWB legislation would not have the “sunset” provision the last one did.
Then what? The gun control politicians would see that it has no effect on criminals and, as California and NJ and other states did, would take the next step of confiscating the legally owned “assault rifles.”
Romney is also a fraud on a host of other issues but gun rights are the ones that protect all the others.
Again: I will never vote for Mitt Romney. Ever. I’d sooner trust my gun rights to McCain or Huckabee or even Giuliani who has said that he would not support a new AWB (whether I believe that or not is another story). Romney is right out front stating that if he becomes President there will be a new AWB.
So. That leaves a third party vote and right away everyone will jump on me and say, “That’s throwing away a vote. Do you want to see Hillary or Obama elected?”
And I’ll answer, “If that’s what it takes to bring the Republican party back to its roots, yes.”
Quite frankly, I believe that Huckabee = McGovern, as profound a disaster for the conservative cause, especially the libertarian branch of the family, as McGovern was for liberals. I do not believe there is a chance in the world that Huckabee can be elected. I do however believe that Huckabee can accomplish what his campaign manager Ed Rollins keeps crowing about — the final destruction of the old Reagan coalition.
I believe, as President Reagan so eloquently stated in his first Inaugural Address, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Michael B
-
clayflingythingy, I support Fred because he is pro 2A , he is not a career politician, he did a good job for us in Tennessee, and he is not in anyones pocket. He also has some experience in foreign affairs and is a straight talker. Unfortunately Fred looks like he could care less, so my next choice is Huckabee. But lets not forget that Obama is the next Kennedy ???
-
I'm in NH, I just voted for Fred, If he looses here I'd say Huckabee or Ron Paul. I'd not vote before I would vote for Obama, who will probably get the Dem nomonation. I would not even vote for Bill Richardson because of the Liberal baggage any democrat will have to bring with him no matter how good his own positions may be. While there probably are "good" democrats who don't worship Lenin and Marx, the moveon crowd has the Soros money therefore the influence in the party.
-
Let me start off by saying I have a great deal of skepticism whenever ANY politician opens thier mouth.
While looking hard at Fred, why hasn't anybody mentioned Hunter? He's currently tied with Rudy and only slightly behind Paul and McCain. He's NRA Rated A, wants us to finish what we started in Iraq but make the Iraqis increasingly more responsible for their security, and has similar views on imigration and taxes. I was just poking around Commie News Network and read their page on issues and canidate responses and he is similar to Fred in most of them. His one flaw is that he is from CA (but so am I).
just askin
-
Do we, as 2A voters stick with Fred until the bitter end? YES
Do we boycott the election? NO
Or do we try to make a choice between the winner of Ia and the winner(s) of NH and Mi? NO. We support the Republican nominee unless it is Ron Paul, then we vote Democratic.
I'm thinking maybe Don is right. I will probably support the nominee with my vote, because I am a single-issue voter. I say probably because Romney is antigun. read Jeff at ALPHECCA's thoughful commentary on that issue today:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=596
Quite frankly, I believe that Huckabee = McGovern, as profound a disaster for the conservative cause, especially the libertarian branch of the family, as McGovern was for liberals. I do not believe there is a chance in the world that Huckabee can be elected. I do however believe that Huckabee can accomplish what his campaign manager Ed Rollins keeps crowing about the final destruction of the old Reagan coalition.
I believe, as President Reagan so eloquently stated in his first Inaugural Address, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Michael B
+1 on most of it
But I believe that Social Conservatives will not vote for Giuliani, McCain, or Romney, and fiscal Conservatives will not vote for Huckabee, in sufficient numbers to ever win the presidential election, and hopefully even the Republican primaries. The only viable compromise candidate is really Fred in a brokered Republican Convention. I do not see anyone getting more than 30%, 35% tops before September (fortunately). And I would rather have my enemies in front of me, than behind me, so I would sit out the election if Fred is not the candidate. Sad that it took Jimmy Carter to bring us Ronald Reagan, but I have found that compromising your principles never gets you what you hope.
George Murdock
-
+1 on most of it
But I believe that Social Conservatives will not vote for Giuliani, McCain, or Romney, and fiscal Conservatives will not vote for Huckabee, in sufficient numbers to ever win the presidential election, and hopefully even the Republican primaries. The only viable compromise candidate is really Fred in a brokered Republican Convention. I do not see anyone getting more than 30%, 35% tops before September (fortunately). And I would rather have my enemies in front of me, than behind me, so I would sit out the election if Fred is not the candidate. Sad that it took Jimmy Carter to bring us Ronald Reagan, but I have found that compromising your principles never gets you what you hope.
George Murdock
A non vote is a vote against the 2A! I am afarid that that if we get another Jimmy Carter (AKA Hitlery or Osama Bama) we may lose our rights never to get them back!
-
I apoligize for my state being full of idiots. To many massholes infiltrated among the refugees from the nanny state.
Tom in NH
-
I'm not sure I could follow Don's plan if I lived in SC, Fl, or a Super Tuesday state. Voting for Fred when you KNOW he's not going to be the nominee means you HAVE to live with the guy others choose.
I will never vote for Huckster or Romney. I used to feel that way about Guiliani but if it came down to him or Hildabeast/Obama I could push the button next to his name while puking all over the voting booth. McCain I could hold my nose while voting. At least I know exactly where we as gun owners stand with McCain.
But staying with Fred after all hope of his winning has passed seems to me to be setting up a potential win by Huckster or Romney or someone else you couldn't support.
Seems to me it is better to switch to the lesser evil when you vote.
It's all academic for me because the nominee will be settled well before my state's May primary. There hasn't been a brokered convention in my lifetime and I don't think we will see one this year. Depending on how Mi plays out this looks to be coming down to a two man race between McCain/Huckster. I would give the odds to Huckster slightly based on the fundamentalist vote in the south. So, if I lived in Mi or SC I would vote McCain to stop Huckster.
We live in a nation where each gets to vote his conscience even if the people at times choose someone we bitterly disagree with. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
-
I am not a single issue voter( then again I would not vote for some one that said, 1st thing we do in office is get the guns)
Then again I can't vote in the primary as I'm Registerd as an independent... in the great land of CA you can only vote( in primarys) for people from your party. which is a load of crap... but wouldn't you know it, the demo and American indys will allow you to vote on thier ballet if you want. ::) Lets see, there is no one on the demo ticket I would vote for, I disagree with them on far to many issues. I disagree with the entire AI platform ( that of no income tax, only sales tax on every thing...) So that pretty much means this year I'm only voting on some propostions... of which all of them I have already made up my mind...
Honestly, the current two party system we have reminds me alot of two famous gangs... both are crimals, the only diffrences is one wears blue, the other wears red.
-
What do people in ARK. say about Huckabee sounds like alot of people here hate him but that doesn't mean they know what they are talking about, I know several people from Ma. they all hate Romney.
Based on what he says for Himself Huckabee's positions are about the same as Freds.
-
Several times the name of Ronald Reagan has been used in these discussions as if RR is somehow the bar by which all conservatives must be measured. Let me remind you of some the great conservative accomplishments of RR. Hundreds of dead Marines in Lebanon, arming the Mullahs of Iran and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Spending money like a dunk sailor to the tune of TRILLIONS. We are still paying off his debt today. NOT reducing the Federal gov’t but INCREASING its size, never abolished the Dept of Education which he promised, fired all the air traffic controllers on one day (crippling the airline industry for a time), was on his watch that the biggest stock market crash since ’29 occurred (crippling the economy for 5 years), etc etc. Then his Alzeimhers kicked in and he was even more detached from day to day activity. That is when Nancy Reagan ran the government and brought in Jean Dixon (psychic) to advise her and Ronny.
He had great speech writers. He had some good advisors, Deaver, Meese, and Baker. But get real. He had at best an OK kind of run. Good lord save us from another RR.
-
All this Presidential talk reminds me that we have to control the Congress regardless of the Presidential candidate who wins. If Hillary wants to take the guns, she might - might mind you - want to get laws passed. If laws are passed contrary to her wishes, it just makes it all that much harder for her to do the grab.
So folks, we need to focus on Congress as well as the Pres.
-
L His one flaw is that he is from CA (but so am I).
That isn't a flaw unless he comes to the table with Commiefornia ideals like the Govanator. Hunter isn't that kind of guy. Lest we forget Reagan was from CA and was the beau ideal conservative.
-
Several times the name of Ronald Reagan has been used in these discussions as if RR is somehow the bar by which all conservatives must be measured. Let me remind you of some the great conservative accomplishments of RR. Hundreds of dead Marines in Lebanon, arming the Mullahs of Iran and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Spending money like a dunk sailor to the tune of TRILLIONS. We are still paying off his debt today. NOT reducing the Federal gov’t but INCREASING its size, never abolished the Dept of Education which he promised, fired all the air traffic controllers on one day (crippling the airline industry for a time), was on his watch that the biggest stock market crash since ’29 occurred (crippling the economy for 5 years), etc etc. Then his Alzeimhers kicked in and he was even more detached from day to day activity. That is when Nancy Reagan ran the government and brought in Jean Dixon (psychic) to advise her and Ronny.
He had great speech writers. He had some good advisors, Deaver, Meese, and Baker. But get real. He had at best an OK kind of run. Good lord save us from another RR.
You have some facts wrong and of course out of context to the times. We armed Iraq and Afghanistan which is true. The issue is that in context it was to thwart the Russians who backed Iran and the puppet government in Afghanistan. They were needed parts of the cold war and the ramifications of Afghanistan was the failure of the Soviet system. Was it expensive, you bet your ass it was, but in the end the West won which was the important part. It took till Reagan to get to $1 Trillian of debt. Since Reagan we have added $8 Trillion more in debt. Right now, according to the Comptroller General of the USA, each household is in hock to the tune of $400,000. Every citizen is in hock for $170,000. The DoE is but a very small part. It is Social Security and Medicare that are killing us. All the old farts that are going to want their checks and their "free" medical. If we want to keep the system around we need, as of today, $53 Trillion to cover just these two programs.
We have socialized ourselves into a world of hurt. If we don't find a way to get ride of SS and Medicare and many other programs we are running to a time when the dollar is cheaper than the paper we wipe our butts with and a time when the 1930s look like a boom period. I don't even hear Fred talking about this, only Ron Paul is talking about the huge fiscal problems we have.
-
The reason Social Security is broke is because back in the 60's and 70's the democrats in congress robbed it to pay for their social programs. The only people entitled to social security bennies are retiree's over 65, not every retarded kid and gluttons to fat to work, and people with "bad Backs" I say let em starve. Look at Steven Hawking , all he can move is his eye balls ,but he's supported his family, well. These drones could work they just don't want to.
-
Sadly it is not just the Dems, Republicans are almost just as bad. How about prescription drugs a'la Bush? No child left behind a'la Bush and Kennedy. The bridge to nowhere? Republican senators from AK. The Dems are bad, don't get me wrong, but the Republicans don't have a leg to stand on. I have read much talk about the lessor of two evils, and frankly I have to say that those people are really the problem. By allowing the GOP to put up someone who is just the "lessor of two evils" we in effect have told them that someone just barely better than a filthy stinking rat Dem is fine since we will just take the "lessor of two evils". That leaves us with a field of people who suck. McCain sucks, Romney sucks, and Guiliani sucks. Fred and Duncan and Ron are our best options. Of those I think Ron or Fred are our best choices. I have liked everything that Duncan Hunter has said, but he has been in Government a long time and therefore is a part of the problem and if we all took the time to see what he voted for I bet we could find many foibles.
Ron Paul I agree with about 95% of the time, but I am sure we could find foibles of his own in his voting record. Finally we have Fred. He seems to be a solid choice, but was extremely stupid in his choices about when to join the race and how. Had he announced around July 4th like was thought he would have had the momentum to crush all around, but he waited to long, this really hurt him. So things don't look good for Fred. I think he could be the best option for the country, but that said I think I have about as much of a chance of getting the nomination for the GOP as Fred does sadly. Frankly I am seriously thinking about sitting this one out. The GOP doesn't represent me, the Dems don't represent me, and neither do any of the fringe 3rd parties. I am so disgusted with the American political system that is sending us down the road towards falter and a populace that is begging for it or sticking its thumbs in its ears and yelling "la la la la" so it doesn't have to deal with the problems of the day.
-
Sadly it is not just the Dems, Republicans are almost just as bad. How about prescription drugs a'la Bush? No child left behind a'la Bush and Kennedy. The bridge to nowhere? Republican senators from AK. The Dems are bad, don't get me wrong, but the Republicans don't have a leg to stand on. I have read much talk about the lessor of two evils, and frankly I have to say that those people are really the problem. By allowing the GOP to put up someone who is just the "lessor of two evils" we in effect have told them that someone just barely better than a filthy stinking rat Dem is fine since we will just take the "lessor of two evils". That leaves us with a field of people who suck. McCain sucks, Romney sucks, and Guiliani sucks. Fred and Duncan and Ron are our best options. Of those I think Ron or Fred are our best choices. I have liked everything that Duncan Hunter has said, but he has been in Government a long time and therefore is a part of the problem and if we all took the time to see what he voted for I bet we could find many foibles.
Ron Paul I agree with about 95% of the time, but I am sure we could find foibles of his own in his voting record. Finally we have Fred. He seems to be a solid choice, but was extremely stupid in his choices about when to join the race and how. Had he announced around July 4th like was thought he would have had the momentum to crush all around, but he waited to long, this really hurt him. So things don't look good for Fred. I think he could be the best option for the country, but that said I think I have about as much of a chance of getting the nomination for the GOP as Fred does sadly. Frankly I am seriously thinking about sitting this one out. The GOP doesn't represent me, the Dems don't represent me, and neither do any of the fringe 3rd parties. I am so disgusted with the American political system that is sending us down the road towards falter and a populace that is begging for it or sticking its thumbs in its ears and yelling "la la la la" so it doesn't have to deal with the problems of the day.
You must be French!! I see your waving the white flag, and the Germans haven't reached the border yet!!!!
-
Sadly the DHOMONEY post above perpetuates the revisionist nonsense about the RR period. First of all check your history, Ollie North et al sold weapons to IRAN. When caught the old man refused to back Col. North and let him hang out in the breeze. The proceeds were to fund the Contra’s, and oh by the way he gave them carte blanc to sell drugs in the US (a minor point) also.
As for the fall of the Soviet Union it crumbled over at least the 20 or so years prior. It did not happen over night. You might recall the whole central planning thingy that doesn't work. That RR won the cold war is as silly as saying GHB won it.
Finally on the economic side, RR took the debt from 900B in 1980 to just shy of 3T in 1989. Also remember what David Stockman said about RR economics.
As for the DOE, well I guess you weren’t around then. RR made a big deal of it. Then didn’t live up to his commitment and let the DOE continue to poison the minds of our children.
I will not go further on this hog wash, so in sum, RR wasn’t evil just another pol. He did have a pretty cool ranch in Kalifornia though.
-
I have to say your pretty much on the money 1776rebel. It seems we have to take the lessers of the two evils. I personally liked Kennedy, Nixon and RR. Carter was just too nice. And they all have tremendous baggage, but were still here. I dont care who is president, the congress and house runs the country, just matters what the majority is. The next few years will cull the flock, economy is in the dumper, depression coming.
-
Carter was and is a gutless coward and a disgrace not only to the Office of the President, and Uniform of the US Navy, He also shamed Admiral Hyman Rickover,who's protoge he was. He is such an ass that NONpolitical writers have refered to him as a " Dictator Groupy" for the way he sucks up to lowlifes like Kim Il Jong, Fidel Castro, Milosevic, ( I aint trying HIS first name) and that jerk in Iran (another spelling challenge) I was on active duty as a US Marine when that POS was squating in the White House and will NEVER let anyone forget what a worm he was.
What shows that Dhomoney has his own agenda is that he neglects to mention that Ronbo's spending is what pushed the USSR over the edge and led to the end of the "Evil Empire". He also ignores the fact that since he bombed Libya Quadafi not only has quit backing terrorists but is now becoming down right freindly toward the Western world while turning away from fundamentalist Muslims.
Anyone who thinks that the "NEW RUSSIA" is our friend is blind to the history of Russia who is only our freind when the Germans are kicking their butts (Like France) and the biography of Vladimir Putin, Who as a KGB officer made his carreer in suppresing Dissadents , That means sending them to slave labor camps or shooting them. The new cold war started when we quit buying them out of anarchy around 2000.
The British, in '02 told their intelligence agencies to recommence espionage activities against the Russian Govt. and counterintelligence activities against the FSB.
-
Several times the name of Ronald Reagan has been used in these discussions as if RR is somehow the bar by which all conservatives must be measured. Let me remind you of some the great conservative accomplishments of RR. Hundreds of dead Marines in Lebanon, arming the Mullahs of Iran and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Spending money like a dunk sailor to the tune of TRILLIONS. We are still paying off his debt today. NOT reducing the Federal gov’t but INCREASING its size, never abolished the Dept of Education which he promised, fired all the air traffic controllers on one day (crippling the airline industry for a time), was on his watch that the biggest stock market crash since ’29 occurred (crippling the economy for 5 years), etc etc. Then his Alzeimhers kicked in and he was even more detached from day to day activity. That is when Nancy Reagan ran the government and brought in Jean Dixon (psychic) to advise her and Ronny.
He had great speech writers. He had some good advisors, Deaver, Meese, and Baker. But get real. He had at best an OK kind of run. Good lord save us from another RR.
You forget that RR had to rebuild our military after GUTTLESS!!! Carter practicaly dismantled it!
-
ismram, You got that right, Marines who failed to qualify on the rifle range ( nessecary for promotion) could not re-qual as the Corps could not afford the ammunition. I was in a motor transport maintanance Co. We would spend 10 months pulling defective parts off vehicles , then wait till Nov and dec. when the new budget allowed us to buy SOME replacements, these weren't little things either but parts like engines and transmissions. we would have sent them to a higher echelon for rebuild , but they had no parts either.
-
I apoligize for my state being full of idiots. To many massholes infiltrated among the refugees from the nanny state.
Tom in NH
Somewhere I read that it wasn't Massachusetts refugees that were responsible for the leftward turn of the Granite State but rather people from the Mid-Atlantic states. I guess Vermont got a little too expensive for them and they thought NH was the next best thing. It wasn't too long ago that NH was quite reliably Republican.
John in NC - a late primary state :P
-
JPR9954, Please don't misunderstand me. There is a differance between "Refugees from the nanny state" former Ma. residents who flee the corruption and and taxes and increasingly meddlesome legislation of a state firmly in the hands of a powerful Democratic party machine ( How else could Whitey Bulger's brother become Senate president, how else could Teddy K. keep getting reelected) I have friends and relatives in this catagory. And then there are massholes, these are the people who leave Ma. because NH taxes are lowwer and then try to push the same assinine policies that made Ma. unlivable in the first place. NH has always had a strong democratic presence, but it was the CONSEVITIVE branch of the dem. party and they USED to be independent minded enough to vote CONSERVITIVE despite party labels.
I had athought ( No, it didn't hurt) The Democratic party is so ridiculuslly leftist because when Hoovers FBI cracked down on Socialists and communists the rank and file members moved over to the liberal wing of the democratic party.
if we brought back the Socialist Party preaching a straight Marxist/ Leninist doctrine ( sabotage or trickery would be to easy to spot) It would draw off the Soros / moveon supporters, cutting into Democratic party numbers and money. This would marginalize both parties as third party candidates never win national elections and the democrats would no longer have such numbers.
Another thought, The major problems with the political process are 1) activist media who report their own opinions as the facts, 2) The type of people who seek political office , they have turned the phrase "congressional ethics into an oxymoron, a bad joke on us, Example ,Abscam john Murtha, (don't get me going on THAT sleazeball) 3) The politicians who don't go to jail , put PARTY before all else, If one party could bring paradise to the whole planet the other party would oppose it purely on the basis that it's not our idea. Look how many votes are "split along party lines" I'm not sure how to solve these issues, Maybe instead of electing people who are willing to spend $100+ million for a job that pays $250,000/year we should DRAFT the most qualified , LEAST willing person for the job.
It might not work but it would make the campaign ads more interesting
-
Was thinking the blog was worthy of an honest and frank discussion. As some already know I live in a May primary state so I have no say in choosing the nominee. If I lived in an early state I would vote Fred. I have never voted Dem for prez because of the gun issue. I am a small government conservative with libertarian leanings. Just wanted to get that out there for any newbies.
I may ramble a bit here so please excuse.
snip
SC is going to be a battle between Huckster and McCain.
Just where does Fred break out in the process? Truth is, he has nowhere to make a breakout. I live in a Bible Belt state. Surrounded by Southern Baptists. The buzz I am hearing from fundamentalist coworkers/friends/relatives is Huckster. Fundamentalists have one of their own to vote for and no one turns out like fundamentalists when they are fired up on an issue. This alone dooms Fred in SC and much (ALL?) of the south.
I live in western North Carolina. NC is one of those late primary states so I have been doing my best to support Fred with $$$ now instead of later.
Living in WNC, most of our TV comes from the upstate of South Carolina. Before Christmas, the ads were mostly Romney, Huck, and John Edwards with an occasional Hillary or Obama ad thrown in. Now,the TV ad scene has changed dramatically. It is Fred, John Edwards and McCain. I know Mitt pulled out to go to Michigan and gave up on SC. It will be interesting to see who his supporters switch to, if anybody.
The political blogosphere thinks Fred won the debate in Myrtle Beach yesterday and he did it by calling Huck out as a wannabe Democrat. I agree, however, with the role of identity politics giving Huck much more strength than he deserves. I think the Upstate will probably stick with Huck. It will be the rest of the state that becomes interesting. E.g., how will the retired Marine population living in the Beaufort area vote?
Unlike Iowa, politics in the Palmetto State are a blood sport. Fred can go brutal on Huck and people will lap it up -- and expect it. He's started to do so and I hope he keeps it up.
I did see Lindsay Graham out campaigning with John McCain yesterday in the MB area. However, I get the feeling that many in SC find him a RINO esp. lately and, to be frank, wonder about his sexual orientation (not that I care). I think the real clue to what conservatives will do is if Jim DeMint comes out and endorses someone. He seems to be much more reliably conservative and a strong fiscal conservative along the lines of Tom Coburn of OK.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
John
-
JPR9954, Please don't misunderstand me. There is a differance between "Refugees from the nanny state" former Ma. residents who flee the corruption and and taxes and increasingly meddlesome legislation of a state firmly in the hands of a powerful Democratic party machine ( How else could Whitey Bulger's brother become Senate president, how else could Teddy K. keep getting reelected) I have friends and relatives in this catagory. And then there are massholes, these are the people who leave Ma. because NH taxes are lowwer and then try to push the same assinine policies that made Ma. unlivable in the first place. NH has always had a strong democratic presence, but it was the CONSEVITIVE branch of the dem. party and they USED to be independent minded enough to vote CONSERVITIVE despite party labels.
I had athought ( No, it didn't hurt) The Democratic party is so ridiculuslly leftist because when Hoovers FBI cracked down on Socialists and communists the rank and file members moved over to the liberal wing of the democratic party.
if we brought back the Socialist Party preaching a straight Marxist/ Leninist doctrine ( sabotage or trickery would be to easy to spot) It would draw off the Soros / moveon supporters, cutting into Democratic party numbers and money. This would marginalize both parties as third party candidates never win national elections and the democrats would no longer have such numbers.
Another thought, The major problems with the political process are 1) activist media who report their own opinions as the facts, 2) The type of people who seek political office , they have turned the phrase "congressional ethics into an oxymoron, a bad joke on us, Example ,Abscam john Murtha, (don't get me going on THAT sleazeball) 3) The politicians who don't go to jail , put PARTY before all else, If one party could bring paradise to the whole planet the other party would oppose it purely on the basis that it's not our idea. Look how many votes are "split along party lines" I'm not sure how to solve these issues, Maybe instead of electing people who are willing to spend $100+ million for a job that pays $250,000/year we should DRAFT the most qualified , LEAST willing person for the job.
It might not work but it would make the campaign ads more interesting
I didn't misunderstand you. I realize that the "Massholes" are different from the ex-Nanny-staters. I think you are seeing this trend in places like Arizona with ex-Californicators.
That said, I wanted to mention that I had read many of the libtards were coming from states other than MA.
I agree with you it would clarify things quite a bit if the netroots or nutroots just came out of the closet and declared themselves Socialists.
John
-
I got divorced in Ca. I got californicated. When I lived there , Just south of Oakland, Barbra Boxer was My state rep. :(
( See why I left) When they recalled Gray Davis and elected Arnie I thought there might be hope boy was I WRONG. At least the court through out the SF gun ban.
Hopefully Onslow county will also help take your state in the right direction, I intend to comment on that on some USMC related websites.